If you found out that you only had a week to live, how would you live it? What if you found out that you had 100 days?
This question brings up the zen question of death and life. How can we live our life so we aren't afraid of death? Isn't part of being afraid of death is that we feel like we don't have enough time here, to do whatever it is that we feel we need to be doing? If we lived a full, and present, life, would death be so scary?
Maria contemplates the raw truth of how many days she can realistically expect to live. Having a solid number gives her perspective on how impermanent life is. And instead of brooding on it, she uses that information to inspire her to live a more present life.
It makes me wonder, why we are so resistant to allowing ourselves to live life in the moment? Why is it so compelling to spend so much time in the past, future.. simply escaping?
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
August 4, 2008
February 5, 2007
Ethics of Assisted Suicide
After reading about Switzerland's ruling to allow assisted suicide for people with serious mental illness, I feel like I should have a strong opinion either way.
But I don't. Death is a private affair that the state shouldn't have a hand in its ethics either way. But if the society as a whole has the belief that suicide is bad, then it makes sense to have a uniform ruling about when it can and can't be done from a legal standpoint. So, I feel rather neutral on it. If anything, this ruling tells me more about the Switzerland's social ethics.
I did however have a question. One of the requirements for a person to be allowed to help a seriously mentally ill patient, is that the act "must be a person of sound judgment's own well-considered and permanent decision".
If a person is so seriously mentally ill that he wishes to die, how can he possibly fit this requirement? How could the state/government know if it's the illness talking or the person? Who gets to decide if a mental illness is something a person suffers from, or if it's just who he is?
The concept sounds like it makes sense, but I'm not sure how this would be implemented. To the point that I'm not sure if the ruling actually means anything.
What do you think about this ruling?
But I don't. Death is a private affair that the state shouldn't have a hand in its ethics either way. But if the society as a whole has the belief that suicide is bad, then it makes sense to have a uniform ruling about when it can and can't be done from a legal standpoint. So, I feel rather neutral on it. If anything, this ruling tells me more about the Switzerland's social ethics.
I did however have a question. One of the requirements for a person to be allowed to help a seriously mentally ill patient, is that the act "must be a person of sound judgment's own well-considered and permanent decision".
If a person is so seriously mentally ill that he wishes to die, how can he possibly fit this requirement? How could the state/government know if it's the illness talking or the person? Who gets to decide if a mental illness is something a person suffers from, or if it's just who he is?
The concept sounds like it makes sense, but I'm not sure how this would be implemented. To the point that I'm not sure if the ruling actually means anything.
What do you think about this ruling?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)